New Bin Laden tape surfaces

[Toshiaki Koala 0]

Maybe he IS bin Laden~!

 

I found this on another message board, posted by a guy who found it on yet another board. It's quite scary.

 

Beware the Ides of March

Posted by James Wolcott

...warns William S. Lind at Antiwar. The war in Iraq has bloodily settled into a seesaw rhythm. He perceives rumblings of breakout action just in time for the spring collections. What gives?

 

"Osama bin Laden's latest message. Most observers, including the White House, seem to have missed its significance. In it, bin Laden offered us a truce (an offer we should have accepted, if only to attempt to seize the moral high ground). The Koran requires Muslims to offer such a truce before they attack. The fact that bin Laden himself made the offer, after a long silence, suggests al-Qaeda attaches high importance to it.

 

"Why? My guess is because they plan a major new attack in the U.S. soon. I would be surprised if the plan were for something smaller than 9/11, because that could send the message that al-Qaeda's capabilities had diminished. Could this be "the big one," the suitcase nuke that most counterterrorism experts expect somewhere, sometime? That would certainly justify, perhaps require, a truce offer from Osama himself. Of course, al-Qaeda's plan may fail, and it may be for an action less powerful than setting off a nuke on American soil. But the fact that Osama made a truce offer should have set off alarm bells in Washington. So far, from what I can see, it hasn't.

 

"In Iraq, Shi'ite country is turning nasty. The Brits are finding themselves up against Shi'ite militias around Basra. Moqtada al-Sadr has made it clear he is spoiling for another go at the Americans, saying his militia would respond to any attack on Iran. In Baghdad, the Shi'ites who run things are finding American interference increasingly inconvenient. We are now talking to at least some Sunni insurgents, as we should be, but that means our utility to the Shi'ites as unpaid Hessians is diminishing. Put it all together and it suggests the improbable Yankee-Shi'ite honeymoon may soon end. When it does, our lines of supply and communication through southern Iraq to Kuwait will be up for grabs.

 

We are moving toward war with Iran. Our diplomatic efforts on the question of Iranian nuclear research and reprocessing are obviously designed to fail, in order to clear the boards for military action. It will probably come in the form of Israeli air strikes on Iran, which, as the Iranians well know, cannot be carried out without American approval and support."

 

Cue all hell busting loose at that point. Andrew Cockburn at Counterpunch argues that the use of US force against Iran is unlikely, given the high price of human fodder. "Jimmy Carter presented Iran with 52 hostages. George Bush has done a lot better, sending 130,000 Americans across the ocean as guarantees of his administration's good behavior toward the Islamic Republic. Last week, Tehran reminded us of its ability to make life unpleasant for US forces in Iraq by hosting Moqtada al Sadr for a high profile visit, in the course of which he obligingly pledged that his militia, the Mahdi army, would retaliate for any American attack on Iran. His spokesman quoted him as telling his hosts 'If any Islamic state, especially the Islamic Republic of Iran, is attacked, the Mahdi Army would fight inside and outside Iraq.'"

 

And Moqtada al Sadr, he don't mess around.

 

Cockburn believes sanity will prevail. Lind sees the inmates still in control of the asylum. "In Washington, the same brilliant crowd who said invading Iraq would be a cakewalk is still in power. While a few prominent neocons have left the limelight, others remain highly influential behind the scenes. For them, the question is not whether to attack Iran (and Syria), but when. Their answer will be the same as Israel's."

 

The Weekly Standard has already called upon President Bush "to prepare for various forms of military action" to stop Iran's nuclear program in an editorial portentously titled "And Now Iran." Should Bush fail to act, he will face the full wrath of Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, leaving only Fred Barnes to lap up his every word as gospel

[Art Sandusky 0]

Al-Queda and Osama's own tapes are a series of damning confessions. He'd be sunk if there was even a defense offered.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

If Osama sets a nuke off in the United States then all Islamic extremist groups are going to wish they never fucked with the United States period.

[2GOLD 0]

If Osama sets a nuke off in the United States then all Islamic extremist groups are going to wish they never fucked with the United States period.

 

If they set off a Nuke, we are all fucked. That is one war where there will be no winner.

[Art Sandusky 0]

That'd be the worst thing they could do. The region would turn on extremism at that point.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Conversely, the west would embrace it. Weird.

[super_tigris 0]

Setting off a nuke in the United States or against any of its allies (or, really, any peace-seeking country) would be so incredibly counter-productive to what they want, that it's not even funny. Not that they already don't do things counter-productive to their cause (some of the most effective techniques in history to any party getting what they want were creative non-violence, and some of the most failed attempts were violence insighted by either side). If insighting World War III or any sort of nuclear holocaust is what any militant group wants, then that's the best way to do it. Regardless, you can bet your ass that if a nuke is set off in the United States, that there will be some sort of massive resistance against the parties responsible, and visa versa. It's a lose-lose situation.

[SuperJerk 0]

You're reasoning is sound, but you're also trying to apply rational thought to irrational people.

[super_tigris 0]

But that's what the world is, isn't it? Selling rational thinking to irrational people, or selling irrational thinking to rational people who have 3 options on a piece of paper.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Well, if that happens, how would we retaliate? I mean, unless they could pinpoint what country was responsible for harboring the terrorists responsible, like with 9/11...it's not like we could just start nuking every Islamic country for revenge.

[super_tigris 0]

I totally hear what you're saying, but I think you'll see a much more mounting effort to really put down violence and war in the middle east, and not peacefully. I don't think it really matters who harbors the terrorists, as important as that is and as horrible as it is to just jump at the middle east in general via stereotyping everyone over there as millitants, but there's no chance that something much more escalated won't happen then what we've seen now.

[cbacon 0]

So basically, there'd be more indiscriminate retaliation (aka 'shock and awe' to comfort the masses)

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Ultimately the US will have a much stronger hand in dealing with the Arab world if we can break our dependence on their oil, thus cutting off the majority of our economic ties with them. I think we should also pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia and other areas like that, and let them fight each other if need be, as long as they don't bother Israel or our other allies in the region.

[super_tigris 0]

I understand how irresponsible it is to just pull troops out immediatly (mainly Iraq), but I understand how crucial it is. I'm hoping in the next 10 to 15 years that we do pull out of the middle east and let them blow each other up. Maybe a period of isolationism? I don't know, but the thought of dealing with ourselves and not others comes off as a much more comforting feeling to me.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Well, I don't know if the US has to become completely isolationist, but I think they have to become more demanding of the rest of the world, and not give despot nations so much money in trade & aid...stick to working with and dealing with fellow civilized democracies and let the barbarians kill and destroy each other.

 

I think our government needs to get much harder on the UN as well. No more allowing dictators to run wild, and no more weak words. You want to use our troops and money in some African country? Fine, but that country is going to become a protecorate of the United States, so we can make sure they don't revert to hating us right after we pull out...and we're going to recoup our costs by running their economy for a while...meanwhile, we'll make sure they have a proper infrastructure when we leave, so they can't go back to blaming the great Satan for all their problems.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

and not give despot nations so much money in trade & aid

 

We can agree on this.

[super_tigris 0]

I agree totally.

 

I'm sick of war, personally, I'm not a raging pro or anti war person (though I don't even think there are pro-war people, though I haven't yet to encounter everyone, so who knows), but I don't like it and I can't say I feel amazing about the sort of perception the rest of the world has about me without even knowing me. Stuff like this has been going on for forever, but I'm growing up and for the first 15 years of my life I never understood or even bothered questioning or thinking about how so many people can hate me and yet not know me. I really am sick of it, and it's disgusting to the point where I can't imagine how that works, how you can retaliate hypocritically like so many people do.

 

I can hope we become more isolationist, I can hope. I don't think it's our duty to police the world at the expense of an image that's become more fascist than it has become positive.

 

I don't even blame a party or our president, I blame the country as a whole. It's not one person's duty to define me and it seems like we've let that happen, be it by part leaders like Kerry or Bush, it seems like we've all taken a back seat to settling for the absolute minimum rather than demanding more and taking a serious initiative to create a better name for ourselves. I hope in 2008 that we get some kind of president who stands up for what he believes and at leasts answers critics in some capacity to let the world know that not all of the people in the United States of America are so black and white defined by a single party. I might be middle ground, but I'm to the left on an issue here and to the right on an issue there.

[SuperJerk 0]

I hope in 2008 that we get some kind of president who stands up for what he believes and at leasts answers critics in some capacity to let the world know that not all of the people in the United States of America are so black and white defined by a single party.

 

More regular, average people need to vote in the primaries. The way it is now, we'll never get anyone who doesn't blatantly pander to the hard-core base of their party.